A district judge ruled against the ATF, saying a recent pistol brace rule is tantamount to overreach.
A federal judge in Texas on Nov. 8 issued a nationwide injunction that prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing a ban on pistol braces, saying federal officials overstepped their authority when crafting the rule.
“The Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF’s concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings,” District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk wrote in his order. “The Rule ’embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society.’
“Public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is not.”
The order applies to the entire ATF rule, potentially affecting millions of U.S. gun owners.
The case, Britto v. ATF, challenged the pistol brace rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, a decades-old law that governs which federal agencies propose or establish regulations. Judge Kacsmaryk found that the plaintiff’s case will likely prevail, meaning that the ATF rule will likely be struck down.
Citing another case, Mock v. Garland, over the pistol brace ban, the judge wrote that “as explained in Garland, ‘the controlling law of this case is that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rule ‘fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA’ and ‘therefore must be set aside as unlawful’ under the APA.’”
However, he found that some parties could be injured, including dealers and those who own the braces.
“Additionally, ATF admits the 10-year cost of the Rule is over one billion dollars … and because of the Rule, certain manufacturers that obtain most of their sales from the stabilizing braces risk having to close their doors for good,” the order reads.
The judge’s order was hailed by pro-Second Amendment groups on Nov. 8, including Gun Owners of America, which described the decision as “huge news.”
